“What does the media really want?”
- Mar 12
- 5 min read
Updated: Mar 19
By Alex Miarli:
I love a good sequel.
Whether it’s a film, a game or a book, when it’s done right, there’s nothing better than following up on the previous instalment. And that’s exactly what this is. A follow up. A sequel to a previous Q&A I did with our very own CEO, Lynsey Barry.
But this time, we’re taking things in a different direction. We’re Empire Strikes Back-ing it. And with the Star Wars reference out of the way nice and early, I guess you’re wondering what this Q&A is even about?
Well. Put simply, it’s about what the media really wants.
It’s a question that, as PR professionals, we have to constantly address. Because, yes, you can have the usual tactical elements like a press release or a comment, all with the right messaging, but if journalists aren’t interested or it’s not positioned in the right way, it doesn’t land.
So, what does the media really want? I decided to sit down with fellow team members, Abby and Mimi, the two people talking to journalists every single day, to ask them for their insights…
Alex: From your day-to-day conversations with journalists, what do you think they really value from brands today?
Abby: First and foremost, they need to have an opinion. We say this to clients all the time, and I know it can be difficult when you’re balancing brand and risk, but when it comes to big, trending topics or newsworthy moments, journalists value someone who can give a strong opinion.
I remember speaking to a journalist at The Banker who said, if they want a vanilla, middle-of-the-road comment, they’ll just get that from a huge corporation or a regulator.
Mimi: And just building on what Abby said, they want vendors to be offering that colour and flavour. I’d say they also want them to be saying it in simple terms too. Not everyone reading those publications is an expert in their field. Journalists are always looking for experts who can explain things in simple terms.
One journalist I met who works at the Financial Times told me she wants someone who can explain it like they’re speaking to their grandma, or to someone down the pub. Straightforward, simple terms.
Alex: I like that – nice soundbite there, Meems! So, journalists want content to be accessible from the get-go?
Abby: Exactly. Make it digestible and relatable. Getting the top-line perspective across without getting stuck in the weeds.
Alex: With that, you can argue – in the case of a spokesperson interview or a written comment, for example – it’s about the delivery of the message too. So, what makes a spokesperson stand out most?
Abby: The thing I constantly see standing out is having an interesting background. Have they done something unusual? Had a different route into the industry? Overcome some big challenges? All that gives journalists something more emotive and exciting to work with.
Mimi: But if they don’t have that, then they need a hard stance on something. A point of view.
Abby: Exactly! It’s also the human element. Journalists are people. Readers are people. If someone can reference something relatable like, the Avengers or-
Alex: or Star Wars?
Abby: [Sigh] Or Star Wars. But then take that and explain something clearly, it makes it easier to build that relationship with said journalist.
Alex: But in such a crowded and overly saturated news cycle, what actually cuts through right now? Are certain formats working better?
Mimi: I think it’s really all about the quality of the story. For example, you have a research campaign, but if it’s not saying anything new or moving the conversation forward, it’s not going to cut through. And the number of respondents really matters. We’ve had feedback from journalists before that nothing below 1,000 respondents will usually be considered by certain publications, unless it’s a particularly niche audience or specialist subject.
Abby: And I’d say it has to be more than just the data. Giving journalists, like, an entire package makes a difference. So, the research, plus spokesperson interviews, plus case studies, plus something creative… If you can bring multiple elements together, you’re much more likely to see success.
Mimi: Journalists are so busy now. The more you can offer them in one go, the better.
Alex: On the flip side, it seems obvious, but what happens when brands play it safe?
Mimi: They just won’t use it. You very rarely get feedback saying, “This is too middle of the road.” They just move on. If it’s too vanilla or if it’s just describing the product, it won’t get traction. They’re so busy that if it doesn’t work for them, they go to the next thing.
Abby: And with rapid responses especially, there’s absolutely no forgiveness. Again, they’re under time pressure, so if the comment isn’t strong or clear enough, they’ll just air you.
Alex: They’ll ghost you!?
Mimi: Of course. They won’t come back and say it wasn’t punchy enough. They just don’t have the time. One journalist showed me her inbox and it’s thousands of emails a day, basically. They’ll also start to associate your name with content that doesn’t quite land too… That’s when it becomes harder to break back in.
Abby: Yeah, journalists recognise names. If you consistently send strong, relevant content, they remember that. But the same works the other way. If it’s always “safe” or half a story, they’ll remember that too.
Alex: Wow. So, from a journalist’s perspective, what makes a brand someone they want to return to again and again?
Mimi: Reliability. If you offer a briefing, you must be available. If you say you’ll send something, you send it. If you’re flaky, they’ll remember that.
Abby: Producing good quality content as well is a big thing, obviously.
Mimi: And from a spokesperson perspective, rapport also matters. If a spokesperson is personable, good to talk to or puts a journalist at ease, that sticks. They’re more likely to want to speak to them again.
Alex: And what annoys them most?
Abby: How much time do we have? [Laughter]
Mimi: In all seriousness, I think just making their lives harder than they need to be. Overcomplicating things, being awkward on calls, not getting to the point. Journalists just don’t have time for that.
Alex: Final one from me. In your opinion, what’s the difference between a safe story angle and a truly creative one that will resonate with the media?
Abby: A safe story is basically just a description of your product. If your headline is “AI is making X better,” that’s safe. It’s not creative.
Mimi: A creative angle finds a real problem in the sector and speaks to that in a different way to everyone else. It might introduce a new term or a new outlook. It might have that shock factor that makes you think, “Oh, what’s that?”
Abby: But it still has to link back to strategy. If you can’t explain the idea clearly in a sentence or two, you probably don’t understand it well enough yourself.
Final thoughts
And there you have it! A quick insight from those closest to the media. But perhaps the real question we should be asking isn’t just, “What does the media really want?” but whether we’re giving them a reason to come back.
Now, who do we interview next for our Return of the Jedi moment…?
